How Rap Slings came to the Gunks

Havent been there in awhile but it seemed like there was a cable anchor at the top of every climb and a mid station anchor with a posse of top ropers hanging out at the bottom. I certainly do not remember all those anchors being there 30 years ago. some of them yes but nothing even remotly close to what there was a few years ago. heck I do not remember a single anchor at the top of the cliff BINTD..

If you add a bolted station to a belay stance that is a retro bolt. Just because a tat anchor was retroed in before the bolts does not change that fact. If there truely is no way to construct a belay at that stance without pins then by all means switch the old pins out with bolts. If there is good modern gear at the stance then clean the pins and suck it up. Act the real trad climbers you gunkies profess to be:) I am only busting your balls on this because of the dozens of times over the years I have been treated to the Gunki trad snob snub. That smug look and the snyde comment "Don't you think you could have done that without bolts" or "I guess It's ok but I really prefer trad"

Well suck it up sunshine and prove you really prefer trad. learn how to build a trad anchor sometime today (20 min ai't cutting it) fer christs sake......

Take Roseland as an example. yes there was a tree there but you killed the tree and there is also a good crack for gear. Did they replace the tree we killed on Recombeast with bolts. Hell no! that would have been chopped in less time than it takes to talk about it. Then again there is no bolt ban @ Cathedral. Heck with the logic of replaceing the Roseland tree with bolts perhaps we should bolt a door handle to the top of the Prow when the root handle breaks:)
If you guys were real trad climbers you would chop those bolts on Roseland and replace the bad pin in the corner on P2 (the real crux) with a bolt and you would actually climb the route instead of yo yoing P1 all efin day:)

Cheers:)
Nick

In response to question upthread. Adding bolted belays at the top of first pitches encourages gang top ropeing. That is pretty drastic INMOP.

BigA wrote: Oh, I do like how Rgold put Kevin in his place back on page one and then Kevin threw his toys and pretended not to notice/care

This isn't my thread and rgold explained himself to the degree I realize we will not come to an agreement on the matter. I'll be the better man, unlike you pointing this out.

worth russell wrote:The problem with tr parties is people need to speak up. That shit is unacceptable on classics during peak season and weekends. If you wanna tr go to peterskill it's a great place to do so.

Pretty much what should be done. The main arguments against and complaints I've heard about "new" anchors usually revolve around guides or large groups. It's the consensus of an area that allows that as acceptable behavior. Until the community tires of the gang roping, it will continue to happen. It's one reason I try to avoid the Gunks during the busiest times of the year.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: This isn't my thread and rgold explained himself to the degree I realize we will not come to an agreement on the matter. I'll be the better man, unlike you pointing this out.

Hahahah!! If my reveling in some fine Internet forum rebuttals makes me an a-hole in your eyes, I am more than ok with that.

JSH wrote:3) A very few new anchors were put in that (arguments have been made that) change use in varying degrees: Main Line, Apoplexy, Birdland.

Assuming we're talking about the Birdland anchor at the top of P1 - the bolts replaced a nest of 3 pins and tat. The bolted anchor is within a foot of the original pins and was one of the first of the new bolted anchors in the Gunks. Parties had been top roping P1 off the pins for a couple of decades prior to that. The pins also served as a TR anchor for the 5.12 (Slammin the Salmon?)to the right of Birdland. I don't see how the P1 anchor changed anything one iota when the pins were replaced with bolts.

Main Line and Apoplexy are different cases where the argument can be made that the new anchors have indeed changed use. In the case of Main Line it means that the one good pitch of climbing actually gets done now.

I'm late to this thread, but I think that the price of a day-pass has added to the popularity of rapping over the Uberfall walk-off. People seem to be more determined to get their money's worth these days as opposed to the 80s (when I started climbing at the Gunks) when it was $4, although someone could probably prove me wrong by adjusting for inflation. I only encountered one down-soloist in those days -- on Minty. He was bare-footed, had a pretty large pack on, and said that he was on his way back from the swimming hole. He waited patiently for us to finish the first pitch before passing us in the other direction. Nice guy. By the way, I still enjoy the Uberfall walk-off. Allows me to hit the reset button mentally and prep for the next route. The trail up there definitely looks less well-used these days.

rgold wrote: All the Preserve people I've spoken with are very happy about the reduction in environmental stress to the top of the cliff that is the result of the rappelling norms, so in reality there is a balance going on. I don't think, even if there were some way to make it happen, that there are any in the Preserve who would like to see a return to the days when everyone walked back along the top. One might say that the cliff base has been sacrificed to preserve the cliff top. This is one of those land management decisions in which one has to make choices between options, none of which is by itself appealing.

I'm not a Gunks local but I've climbed there a fair bit. My preference has been to walk-off from routes when it makes sense; I do that partly to "complete" a route by doing all the pitches and partly to mitigate the risks associated with rappelling. Does the Preserve discourage that sort of thing? I took a look at mohonkpreserve.org/climb and didn't see anything about preferring the use of rappel stations versus the walk-off.

Dave, the Preserve does not discourage walking off. But as I said, they are very pleased at the relief the cliff-top has experienced from the enormous reduction in walking-off traffic.

Makes sense, Rich. Based on my own observations, I suspect that "walk-offers" now make up a small minority of the climbers using the Preserve.

In response to Julie's comments, slings are the first stage. If a station with slings gets used enough, the pressure to bolt it increases. Since the sling stations are installed by climbers trying to maximize their convenience, the net effect is that the bolting ends up as convenience bolting as well. Another thing that happens is that slings on trees end up stressing the trees, and then bolts are viewed as a solution to the environmental damage.

I'm not at all opposed to a rational bolting (and slinging) policy that creates good rap descent lines that can be shared by multiple routes, which do not route descending traffic down popular climbs, and which avoid creating top-rope stations for the first pitch of multipitch climbs. The general style of contemporary climbing and the amount of traffic in the Trapps demands such a solution. But I also think the Preserve needs to find ways to intervene in the seemingly endless creation of new rap stations, installed at the whim of whatever party wants to either descend from exactly where they happen to be or in order to facilitate top-roping what they want to top-rope.

As for Skytop, there were almost no rap anchors because it was so easy to walk off, so almost every anchor now installed was placed to facilitate guiding.

how often do people approach top rope gang-bangers? I did only once this summer, and only because they threw a rope down on top of a leader on ken's, but overall it seems like everyone is in agreement that it is out of control, everyone agrees that a solution is to talk to groups that are doing it, but I am hard pressed to recall a single time I've seen anyone actually talk to a group.

I don't climb there as much as I once did, but I'd have to respectfully disagree with the idea bolted anchors have not in fact contributed to the gang toproping syndrome. The " tat" people speak of usually didn't look like a good TR anchor, just a rappel station. I also never saw anyone do the U shaped thing to TR two routes at once( in the Gunks ), until the bolts came.

Weekends in the Gunks have reached a situation I read about that happens with monkeys in overcrowded environments in monkey zoos in Asia, people stop interfacing and even avoid eye contact now, it's every man/woman for themselves. Move far enough down crag, or climb weekdays, and it goes away.

Tom Stryker wrote:Weekends in the Gunks have reached a situation I read about that happens with monkeys in overcrowded environments in monkey zoos in Asia, people stop interfacing and even avoid eye contact now, it's every man/woman for themselves. Move far enough down crag, or climb weekdays, and it goes away.

Bingo!

So how does someone fix this? Remove every first pitch anchor, even if it actually serves a use (as a rappel anchor)?

You know - its true the Trapps are crowded on weekends, and at times can be quite *interesting,* but as a person who did trailwork and spent nearly every single Sunday between May and through October in 2013-2014, from 9am to 3pm, near the base of the High Exposure area, this "monkey madness" is partly a hyped version.

YES there are gangs TR'ing, and YES, there are aggressive jerks who will get in your face if you so much try to peek up the skirt of the route they threw their rope down at and are now cooking breakfast.... But there are quality routes with open times - hours, in some instances - where no one is on or getting ready fr the climb. High Exposure itself was one of them. I can only recall one weekend when there was a conga line for that route, and it happened to be one of the autumn "long weekends." Of the times I did see people queing up for routes in the area, they were often people enjoying chatting with the party as they took off, and smartly readying themselves so as to cast away when the preceeding party was at a place they felt decent spacing.

As for gang-TR'ing, I don't think anyone can tell a group where they think they should go(double entendre intended} in a way that isn't kind of being a jerk. Either people are considerate of their surroundings and of others who may want to climb a particular route at some point in the day, or they are not. It's doubtful that someone is oblivious that they are "hogging the route." They simply may not care, and in some cases it is because there is one "leader" who has brought a number of "dependents" along, and that leader isn't truly capable of managing the lot effectively. MeetUp groups might sometimes fall into this category, although I believe most Climbing Meet-Ups end up not being huge groups.

If someone feels it is commercial guides who are tying up those routes with TR gangs, then I would suggest - ASK in the party which guide service is leading the climb. Then, contact the owner of that service with your concern/complaint directly. Writing online "It's the guides!" isn't going to change anything because 1)there are a number of guide services operating in the Gunks, and one may be assuming it is not their service being referred to 2) what may appear to be a guide may very well be one of those leaders with their friends who just happens to have climbing/group management skills; that is - not a commercial guide, and 3)A guide service operator may not actually be aware that one or several of their employees are tying up routes as is being suggested.

I know I have heard many a local guide talk about out of the way places they are working with groups at, and "out of the way" doesn't mean "three access trails further down the cliff that the Stairmaster."

As for bolts at Skytop - I don't think this argument ought be tangled with bolts at MP. The Mountain House is a private entity and always has been. I know it is sad that "we" can't climb at such an historically important climbing area, except through the few options available, but I ave to think that just as the Smiley's were able to see the future issues which would likely arise, and protect the vast tracts of land accordingly by creating the MP, they could probably envision a "Skytop of the Future" when the decision to ask people not to climb there occurred. Skytop at the Mountain House is NOT part of the land trust which is the Mohonk Preserve(maybe some day it will be...imagine THAT! And please, don't troll off of that concept. If you cannot resist, at least start a separate thread.) Climbers CAN be loud and obnoxious, as is being discussed in this thread, and I think it would frankly be ridiculous to expect the Mountain House to subject their customers to that sort of pollution.

Happiegirl beat me to it - Skytop is a private cliff and the climbing activity there is FOR PROFIT. Bolts go in to support that business. Sucks that it has changed from the good old days, but that's the way it is now.

However, they have loosened up the requirements just a tad since the MMH started the climbing (in 2007). One no longer needs to be an overnight guest, or even a meal guest. A call to the Rec Office will set up a day of guided climbing. Expensive? You bet!

JSH wrote: I cannot think of any rap stations newer than, say, 2000. I'm sure they proliferated in the 70s? 80s? but I don't think the Preserve needs to 'intervene in endless creation' at this point.

You must mean bolted rap stations? The early rap stations were cables/slings around trees. For example, there use to be a rappel off of a pine tree just to the right (north) of Arrow that gave you a fun free hanging rappel similar to the Madam G rap. It also didn't go directly down the Arrow route like the one does now. The placement of the rap routes could have been done more thoughtfully so they aren't over existing routes which would eliminate a lot of problems.

JSH wrote: I cannot think of any rap stations newer than, say, 2000. I'm sure they proliferated in the 70s? 80s? but I don't think the Preserve needs to 'intervene in endless creation' at this point.

Rap stations in general or the Preserve-installed bolted stations? If the latter, the majority of them went in well after 2000. The first 5 bolted stations were installed in 1999. There are now around 50 bolted stations.

Dana Bartlett wrote: You have it backwards. They are needed because of the sense of entitlement. Read the recent survey sent out by the GCC.

I'd have to disagree... I would argue they are needed to reduce impacts on the environment and as I understand, have been proven with data to do so.

Basic logic would tell us that using a metal piece in an inanimate rock has less impact on a tree, then using that tree.

Morgan Patterson wrote: I'd have to disagree... I would argue they are needed to reduce impacts on the environment and as I understand, have been proven with data to do so, let alone one's basic logic.

I think the situation is less clear-cut than some people suggest. A typical example: climbers install slings on a tree. The anchor gets a lot of use and the tree is stressed. People look at the tree and say that bolts are needed to reduce environmental impact.

The result is that you have what I would call local perspectives informing practices with global consequences. These perspectives can be restricted either spatially or temporally. If you widen your spacial frame of view, perhaps you find that there are three anchors on a walkable ledge each sixty feet from the other. (This occurs on the ledge running from Jackie to Dennis, for example.) Are three bolted stations now required to save the stressed trees? In the same vein, if you widen your temporal perspective and ask whether it ever made sense, from a land management perspective, to have a sling on that original tree at all, you might have concluded that the solution was to remove the sling and try to find ways to encourage climbers not to replace it, rather than installing some bolts.

I also think the environmental arguments say something about climbers in general that is not a happy thought, which is that as a group they are quite willing to destroy the environment and the only solution to the problem is to provide alternatives that are convenient enough that they will leave the trees alone. I'm not at all convinced this is true, and if it isn't true, then the conclusion would be that such environmental sensitivities as climbers possess have not been activated in the service of preservation by the Preserve (juxtaposition of words intended).

Bolting in a place like the Trapps is a land management issue for the Preserve, it isn't something that is up to this or that climber at all. The Preserve's interest are in...preservation...not in climber convenience. The Preserve, to suggest a Modest Proposal, could simply rope off climbs with stressed trees, as it does with trails, with a sign saying that the area needs to reconstitute. I suspect something like that would alter climber behaviors in a flash.